The Earth Is Full - By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Kitten, if you read Friedman's writing, then you know his main thesis is that as third world countries and China start trying to attain the lifestyle we enjoy in the west, it most assuredly will place constraints on the global supply of resources. If you were trying to make the point that Americans need to consume less, then we both would agree with you.

I was clearing up the article's ambiguous usage of the word "growth." When used without a modifier, "growth" is commonly equated to "population growth," and Malthus theory. Rate of consumption doesn't usually come into play when people read the word "growth." The point I was trying to make is clearly stated at the bottom of my post-- this is a case of unchecked distribution of goods. Population growth takes a back seat to consumption.

And it's kitteneater. Not Kitten. :p

Those bullet points are more applicable to religion.

Do you mean "know nothing?"

Always attacking the source, rather than the argument. Hence your failure to make sense.

yeah, 3 pullitzers - he's definitely a moron. And way to submit valid arguments to his points. If you want to contribute, please provide some substance. Otherwise, you're part of the problem.

Thank you!

Not making much sense, there. Do some research? Climate scientists say the opposite of what you say. They do research for a living.

Just like thousands of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have come out to dispute the "official story" of 9/11, tens of thousands of scientists have come out in protest the hoax theory that CO2 is the main driver for so-called "Global Warming." So this consensus you claim to be the accepted view of science is false. Here's the 2008 UK Telegraph article. Also, watch "Global Warming or Global Governance?" for more insight into this Ponzi Scheme. Its free online.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denyi...

CO2 is one of the main drivers for global warming (which is very real). There are others, mainly methane.

Funny. I live completely off the grid and own a small organic farm. I am curious as to what steps you have taken to reduce your impact on the fragile ecosystem. I don't think if we all became off the gird and organic farmers that it would make one bit off difference to cool the earth. It's like tapping the top of a soda can that has been flipped upside down in the hopes of keeping from spilling forth when opened.

Given what you've written, I don't understand why you apparently deride the idea and impacts of overpopulation and industrial driven climate change.

Pointing out facts and truths about the US' situation is, in your mind, America Bashing? Sad.

I don't deride them nor do I intend to come across that way. I believe in Lovelock's theory that the earth is a living organism. I believe we are just fleas upon it. We can certainly do what my wife and I have done to decrease the irritants we produce as fleas, but even if all the fleas did it simultaneously, I don't believe we could make a demonstrable and definitive impact that would be enough to "save the planet."

No, America bashing is propagating bs about how horrible we are in the world, how having a superpower is dangerous, how if we all sang cumbya and acted more like Europe the world would be a better place and that is sad. I would love to see how these two hypocrites would fare in Teheran, Moscow, Caracas, Bejing, etc.

It is true that our impact as individuals to positively affect planetary environmental outcomes is painfully and absurdly infinitesimal.
It's odd, isn't it, that the havoc we can wreck individually is so many times greater?
One human can burn a hundred thousand acre forest, or order it clear-cut.
It would take one human several lifetimes to plant that many trees.
So here we are.
On a more minor issue, I must say I'm curious about what grievous fault you find with Paul Krugman.

On your first point that is why my wife and I do what we can locally as far as food and energy.

My problem with Krugman is that he is routinely anti American and comes from the school of thought that says either America is not that special a place or we need to be more like our European brethren who are no longer even capable of defending themselves militarily. He clings to outdated Keynesian economics that have proved time and again to be inconsequential at best and exacerbatory at worst. He supported the election of President Obama by writing fluff pieces about him as a candidate but now thinks President Obama is not progressive enough. He perpetuates the corporation benefiting system we have by constantly siding with one party and overlooking the faults of that party, while disingenuously promoting the notion that the parties actually differ when he knows full well Goldman Sachs and the Fortune 100 get paid no matter who is in power.

I appreciate anyone who is making a conscious effort not to continue destroying the planet.
I think you are bit harsh on Krugman, however.
Although you may not agree with his view of economics, which differs from the dominant brutal Chicago School of "supply side" economics we've continue to suffer from today. (And which, by the way, in his studies of economic depression got him a Noble Prize in Economics--a tough world-wide competitive process and not at all like the sometimes politically compromised Noble Peace Prize.)
I think you have to give Krugman credit for being forthright about criticizing major economic players in the economy, including Obama, and detailing why.

We have been extraordinarily lucky in the US in having the resources we have. Unfortunately, if a tiny group of people continue to control and monopolize those resources with little or no oversight or regulation, life for 99% of the people in the US will be continue to get bleaker.
Much like the human body, to have a healthy economy you need full circulation of its life-blood. If you want a long-term economy you also need to exercise a similar type of conscious restraint that any living body would.
Psychotic gluttony just isn't a great model for life systems in any form.

I must say I detect a bit of chauvinism in your imputed view that the US can learn nothing from European countries.
After all, our culture, and most every system we have in the US (like our systems of law, education, etc.) are European and constantly updated with lesson we observe and learn from in those countries.
I love my place here in the US but I also enjoy Europe and look forward to being there from time to time. It's a great break from the US echo chamber.
In fact. I'll be there next week for quite a while. I'll let you know if I happen across anything I'd recommend we consider adopting.

I agree that the Nobel Prize in economics is a more serious prize than the peace prize.

I acknowledge that he won the prize and that their is an entire school of economic thought that agrees with him (the Keynesians).

I disagree that the policies advocated by the Keynesians have helped. I think they have caused harm and created dependency.

If Krugman stuck more to economic commentary and moved away from Dem talking point Repub bashing, I would respect him more.

Of course we can learn things from the Europeans. But copying economic mistakes that have left them vulnerable militarily and financially is not prudent. Their system is artificially propped up by our bearing the majority of their defense costs. If we adopt their system, who will bear the cost of their and our military?

I too love Europe and graduated from high school in Germany and am always open to new ideas and ways of thinking. If they are doing something right, that we should adopt, by all means we should have the discussion.

Perhaps I've given in to my dark side, but frankly, I find myself agreeing with James Lovelace, in that that the inevitable wave of chaos now beginning to hit the shore, IS the appropriate answer to the toxic systems overdraft we caused, and are swimming in.

Awesome video!

A movie named accurately indeed.